t

Opinion: Why is a convention referendum on the ballot this fall?

Alaska’s framers understood that the process of ordinary and higher lawmaking should be different.

  • By J.H. Snider
  • Thursday, October 6, 2022 10:26pm
  • Opinion

By J.H. Snider

Once per decade — next on Nov. 8 — Alaska’s Constitution grants the people the right to call a constitutional convention via a statewide referendum. Alaska’s framers placed this automatic referendum on the ballot to prevent the Legislature from having monopoly power over initiating constitutional amendment. The process they created grants the people three votes: First, whether to call a convention. Second, if called, to elect delegates to the convention. Third, whether to approve the convention’s proposals.

Alaska’s framers understood that the process of ordinary and higher lawmaking should be different. After all, if they were the same, there would be no point in having a written Constitution. Higher lawmaking requires a different process because the Legislature has a conflict of interest when initiating, proposing, and ratifying fundamental laws concerning its own powers. Just as foxes shouldn’t be placed in charge of guarding a henhouse, government officials created by a constitution shouldn’t be placed in charge of amending it. As the drafter of Alaska’s periodic convention referendum put it: “[T]he constitution should not be at the mercy of future state legislatures.”

Each vote was to prevent the foxes from controlling one of the three critical stages of the constitution-making process: the first where the people initiate the process via referendum, the second where the people elect a convention separate from the Legislature to propose constitutional changes, and the third where the people ratify or reject each proposed change.

Convention opponents are correct that bypassing the Legislature in constitution-making costs a premium because a Legislature already exists whereas a convention must be created from scratch. But the framers believed that this additional expense could be an investment, not merely a cost, because of the valuable benefits empowering the people could bring to constitution-making.

The framers also believed that a convention needed the same unlimited constitutional proposal power as the Legislature because allowing the Legislature to limit a convention’s proposals would be granting the fox control over the henhouse. In other words, unlimited agenda setting power for a convention wasn’t a Pandora’s box; it was the prime benefit of the convention process.

Unlimited agenda setting power also didn’t mean unaccountable, as the framers granted the people ratification power over any constitutional amendment proposed by either Legislature or convention.

Convention opponents are spending more than a million dollars making absurd claims that a convention “is a Pandora’s Box pure and simple” and that one would “cost at least $17 million dollars.” The Pandora’s box claim is a direct attack on the framers’ wisdom in putting the periodic referendum in Alaska’s Constitution to function as Alaska’s only constitutional legislative bypass mechanism.

Alaska’s last convention in 1955-6 spent less than $300,000, about $3 million in today’s dollars. And that was for a statehood convention designed to create a constitution from scratch, not merely to propose popular amendments the Legislature won’t pass, such as codifying the Alaska Permanent Fund dividend. Alaska’s government currently spends some $12.7 billion a year and $127 billion over a 10-year stretch. A convention’s cost is merely a rounding error on that amount. If Alaskans, like other Americans, believe their state government wastes at least 30% of every dollar spent, the economic return on a convention that reduces that waste by a mere 1% would be more than 100:1.

The convention process has three natural enemies. First, incumbent legislators because a convention takes power from them. Second, Alaska’s most powerful special interest groups because, by definition, they excel at influencing the Legislature and recognize that a convention could be a Pandora’s box for their interests. Third, any group that prefers using the courts rather than the Legislature or a convention, to pursue its agenda.

Alas, many secondary interest groups depend on these natural enemies for political support, which includes trading convention opposition for support of their organization’s core lobbying mission.

What these four bipartisan groups have in common is that they are political insiders who, in certain relatively rare circumstances, have perverse incentives to form a political cartel averse to the people’s interests. The most famous such cartel in American politics concerns legislative gerrymandering. Alaska’s framers understood the risk of such a cartel regarding opposition to bypassing the Legislature, which is why they created the automatic periodic convention referendum.

J.H. Snider edits The Alaska State Constitutional Convention Clearinghouse and writes about the most difficult democratic reform problems.

More in Opinion

Gov. Mike Dunleavy speaks in support of an agreement between the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities and Goldbelt Inc. to pursue engineering and design services to determine whether it’s feasible to build a new ferry terminal facility in Juneau at Cascade Point. (Clarise Larson / Juneau Empire File)
State, labor and utilities are aligned on modernizing the Railbelt grid

Today, Alaska has a once-in-a-generation opportunity to capture federal infrastructure dollars and… Continue reading

No to 67%

Recently, the Alaska State Officers Compensation Commission voted to raise the pay… Continue reading

This image available under the Creative Commons license shows the outline of the state of Alaska filled with the pattern of the state flag.
Opinion: Old models of development are not sustainable for Alaska

Sustainability means investing in keeping Alaska as healthy as possible.

Gov. Mike Dunleavy unveils proposals to offer public school teachers annual retention bonuses and enact policies restricting discussion of sex and gender in education during a news conference in Anchorage. (Screenshot)
Opinion: As a father and a grandfather, I believe the governor’s proposed laws are anti-family

Now, the discrimination sword is pointing to our gay and transgender friends and families.

Kenai Peninsula Education Association President Nathan Erfurth works in his office on Thursday, Oct. 28, 2021, in Soldotna, Alaska. (Ashlyn O’Hara/Peninsula Clarion)
Voices of the Peninsula: Now is the time to invest in Kenai Peninsula students

Parents, educators and community members addressed the potential budget cuts with a clear message.

Gov. Mike Dunleavy holds a press conference at the Capitol on Tuesday, April 9, 2019. (Juneau Empire file photo)
Opinion: An accurate portrayal of parental rights isn’t controversial

Affirming and defining parental rights is a matter of respect for the relationship between parent and child

t
Opinion: When the state values bigotry over the lives of queer kids

It has been a long, difficult week for queer and trans Alaskans like me.

Unsplash / Louis Velazquez
Opinion: Fish, family and freedom… from Big Oil

“Ultimate investment in the status quo” is not what I voted for.

Dr. Sarah Spencer. (Photo by Maureen Todd and courtesy of Dr. Sarah Spencer)
Voices of the Peninsula: Let’s bring opioid addiction treatment to the Alaskans who need it most

This incredibly effective and safe medication has the potential to dramatically increase access to treatment

An orphaned moose calf reared by the author is seen in 1970. (Stephen F. Stringham/courtesy photo)
Voices of the Peninsula: Maximizing moose productivity on the Kenai Peninsula

Maximum isn’t necessarily optimum, as cattle ranchers learned long ago.

(Ben Hohenstatt / Juneau Empire File)
Opinion: The time has come to stop Eastman’s willful and wanton damage

God in the Bible makes it clear that we are to care for the vulnerable among us.

Caribou graze on the greening tundra of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in northeast Alaska in June, 2001. (Michael Penn / Juneau Empire File)
Opinion: AIDEA’s $20 million-and-growing investment looks like a bad bet

Not producing in ANWR could probably generate a lot of money for Alaska.